Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.13.2003 (2)• • COUNCIL WORK SESSION January 13, 2003 4:15 p.m. Council Chambers Members present: Mayor Rooff, Welper, Greenwood, Clark, Getty. Members absent: Hurley, Jordan. Moved by Getty, seconded by Welper that the Agenda, as proposed, be approved. Ayes: Four. Absent: Hurley, Jordan. Motion carried. The request of Louis and Nancy Carter to expand the Consolidated Urban Revitalization Area for property located at 2540 Burton Avenue was reviewed. The property has been farmland for many years and a new home is now being constructed on the property. The property contains 12.46 acres. Mr. and Mrs. Carter would like to receive tax abatement on the new home. The Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the proposed expansion area. The Urban Revitalization Act, which was passed into law on May 10, 1979 provides the city's governing body with an additional tool to rebuild the economic and sociologic structure of distressed districts within their community. There are two primary goals of the Act. 1. To protect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of degraded districts in the community. This is accomplished by encouraging the rehabilitation of the area's physical environment. Thus, providing a more aesthetically desirable atmosphere in which to live, work and play. 2. To benefit the community by bolstering an otherwise declining tax base. To obtain these goals, private investment is encouraged via the issuance of property tax abatements. Property owners who significantly improve a parcel of land within a designated Urban Revitalization Area may be eligible to receive a total or partial property tax exemption on the increased valuation of the property. The council may designate an area as an Urban Revitalization Area if it meets one of four criteria. City staff has reservations about the request for the following reasons: 1. The area is already on the road to self -revitalization. No guarantee or promises were made by the city regarding the CURA expansion during the rezoning proceedings for this property. The applicants were on the way to improving the area prior to CURA expansion. 2. The City of Des Moines designated their entire city as an Urban Revitalization area. They foresaw the problems associated with requests on the periphery such as these, and that, in part, played into their decision to designate the entire city. Des Moines also stated that a reason for designating the entire city was to compete with their suburbs. When the Waterloo CURA was originated, the entire city was discussed, but staff, the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission and the council felt the tool would be better utilized in the core of the city to encourage infill development. Staff has reservations about the precedent that approving this request will set for future requests just outside the boundaries. In this case, it appears as if the intent of the CURA to spawn development in areas where it otherwise would not occur has not been met. Councilperson Getty suggested that the city look at expanding the CURA on the north side to encourage development. With development of the 63 Corridor, there is great potential for development on the north side if it is designated part of the CURA. Mayor Rooff stated that all the city's interest has been industrial development, not residential. Developers would be required to put in the infrastructure. Don Temeyer, City Planner, reported that Logan Plaza was included in the CURA to help development in the area. Councilperson Getty stated he agrees that approving one house for the CURA does not encourage development, but neither does the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission promote development by denying extension of the CURA further out to Airline Highway. Council Work Session January 13, 2003 Page 2 It was the consensus of the council to look at expanding the CURA boundary and bring back to the council. Noel Anderson, Assistant City Planner, reviewed the revised Consolidated Urban Revitalization Area application form. In September 2001 the council adopted a form to accompany the Consolidated Urban Revitalization Area. This form adopted a timeline when the applications were due to expediently process them. The Black Hawk County Assessor's office recently contacted staff about residents filing their CURA applications a year or so after their improvements. The timeline was adopted to ensure that applicants were expediently turning in their forms to avoid the municipality from receiving taxes one year and then having them removed the next. However, the timeline has caused extra work and problems for the applicants, staff and the County Assessor for the following reasons: 1. The penalty timeline may not allow applicants to use one of their abatement years on a partial value. 2. The timeline can be confusing to applicants who are remodeling, adding on additions, etc. as they may not be aware through their tax bills that they are paying on that portion yet due to reassessments, different levy rates, etc. 3. The timeline can be aggravating to applicants who are doing a phased project as they will still be assessed as the project commences. The timeline form was set up to state the penalties for filing late on a yearly basis. The timeline form coincides with the tax year payments. It was intended to ensure that anyone filing a CURA application would receive at least one tax bill before being ineligible for any abatement. The current form states that the application must be filed with the assessor by February 1 of the year in which the property claimed for exemption is first assessed for taxation. However, a single application may be filed upon completion of an entire project requiring more than one year to construct or complete providing prior approval by the council. Staff provided the following options: 1. The Planning Depart would still inform people to submit the application as they take out their permit, but the elimination of the timeline will also help applicants whose project runs from one assessment year to another to be able to retain all of the years of the program. 2. If the council would like to leave a timeline on the application, the Planning Department could reword the application to read similar to the industrial application in which the council could grant an extension for a late application if they felt conditions were warranted for such an extension. One specific part of this might entail the ability of a project to be finalized for inspections prior to any years being penalized. Mr. Anderson reviewed the current CURA application with the revised application. The Planning Department is recommending removing the timeline of February 1 and adding the language similar to the industrial abatement. It was the consensus of the council to forward the revised application to the council agenda for approval. With no further business before the council, it was moved by Getty, seconded by Clark that the meeting be adjourned at 4:39 p.m. Ayes: Four. Absent: Hurley, Jordan. Motion carried. Nancy Eckert City Clerk • •